Saturday, August 30, 2008

A lot of the analysis about things like the chances of an American (or Israeli) attack on Iran failed so miserably because the analysts failed to note that Dick Cheney has had absolutely no power since the Old American Establishment staged a secret bloodless coup and retook control of the American government about two years ago. Oh sure, he can still cause problems. The debacle in Georgia is telling. Dick and his minions, having no real power, tried to start WWIII by fooling the Georgians into thinking the neocons could deliver American military backup if the Georgians provoked the Russians. Of course, Dick could not deliver such backup, but planned to blackmail the Old American Establishment into providing it with the argument that the United States had to fight to protect its reputation once a key ally was so brutally attacked by the Russians. The Old American Establishment really is tired of fighting Wars For the Jews, and refused to take the bait, essentially saying they weren't going to start a huge war to satisfy the plans of the neocons and their Israeli masters, trying to improve Israel's strategic importance to the U. S. by returning to the golden years (for Zionism) of the Cold War. Cheney has no power; he can only bluff. Had the government of Georgia been given proper intelligence, particlarly about the progrom conducted by the Old American Establishment of Jewish dual loyalists in the White House (Elliot Abrams is still there for the funny reason that the Old American Establishment, looking at his record of strengthening Hamas and Hezbollah through hapless schemes to undermine them, correctly thinks he does World Jewry more harm than good!), they could have saved themselves much grief.

Exactly the same analysis applies to all the 'Iran talk', mostly generated as a result of giving Dick too much credit for having power. Note the American refusal to sell refuelling jets to the Israelis. Normally, that request would have been made in secret, and the response would have been secret. The Old American Establishment is so keen to distance itself from having any blame for anything stupid that Israel might do that it took the almost unprecedented step of making its refusal public. The only similar cases in recent history are when Israel, in direct contravention of agreements with the Americans, sold secret American military technology to American enemies (I note that even when this caused tensions in the relationship, and public steps were taken, the purchasers still appeared to end up with the secret American technology, meaning that the American fury was really for show).

Note also how the refusal was made public. So as not to embarrass Israel, the announcement of the American distancing was made through the Israeli press. You won't find it in the American Jew-controlled media, unless you dig into alternative sites. Nevertheless, the Old American Establishment has ensured that the denial is on record, along with the complete American separation of the United States from the crazed plans of the settler movement. The Israelis will also be thinking about Georgia, an American ally that was hung out to dry by the Old American Establishment. The neocon plan to drag the United States into a war to protect Israel from the Iranian counterattack to the completely illegal and immoral contemplated Israeli slaughter of innocent Iranians may very well fail the same way a similar neocon plan failed for the Georgians. Does Israel want to take the chance of fighting Iran and its rocket-armed allies by itself? And how is Israel going to accomplish this bombing feat without the refuelling jets? And how are its planes going to reach Iran without flying over some country which will deny overflight rights (of course, we all know that international law doesn't apply to the Jews due to the Holocaust Exception)?

All the 'Iran talk' works only on the assumption that Dick is still in full control of the American government and military. He isn't. Failure to recognize this may well prove as tragic to Israel as it has to Georgia.

Jeffrey Goldberg, a vile ultra-Zionist recently reborn as a pseudo-'lite' for tactical reasons, is angry that Andrew Sullivan was amused by James Wolcott's description of the faults of various possible McCain VP choices, a list which includes calling Eric Cantor an "unregistered Israeli lobbyist". Wolcott is as mainstream an American blogger as there is. Sullivan wouldn't have quoted him unless he found the posting funny. It would not have been funny unless it was true. Of course, the other aspect of it being funny is the shock value: Wolcott broke a taboo by saying what everybody is thinking but nobody can say. Without deigning to name Wolcott, Goldberg calls him a 'Jew-baiter', and scarcastically provides us with a list of dual loyalists.

I have already noted that much of the strength of Zionism comes from its control of language. But language is a bitch. If you try to bend it too much, use it to push too many lies, it rebels, and the language-users get their revenge by pushing back. Wolcott's posting is just the beginning of a trend: the mainstreaming of honest talk about what has been going on in the United States for the past few years. This trend will be reinforced by the fact that we are starting to see a clear reconfiguration of American power alliances (ironically caused by the effects of the over-enthusiam of the dual loyalists). I have no doubt that the slurrers will eventually have their comeuppance, and the series of wars the United States has fought and is being pressed to fight will be known by one and all by their true name, the Wars For The Jews.

Friday, August 29, 2008

Bob Ney is fresh out of jail and is wondering out loud why he, of all the criminals around the Bush Administration and the Republican Party, was one of the few who ended up in the slammer. He suggests it may relate to this old story about the Bush Administration's efforts to bury the peace efforts made by the Iranians to the Bush Administration, efforts made through Farsi-speaking Ney, and efforts which were increasingly embarrassing to the neocons, not to mention out of line with the settler-movement's instructions that Iran should be an American enemy. The Iranian offer appears to have made it as far as Elliot Abram's desk, from where, if you can believe it, it has failed to resurface. You might be forgiven for believing that Abrams was committing treason by failing to inform Rice of an offer that could do the real interests of the United States - as opposed to interests of the settler movement for which Abrams really works - a lot of good. Ney may very well have gone to jail to prevent him from talking about Iran.

There is considerable debate in the comments about whether Obama will be able to settle the Palestinian-Jewish problem, or whether he will even try. We'll have to wait and see. Certainly, World Jewry is absolutely terrified that he might cause peace to break out. I am convinced he will at least try, hard, as I am convinced that the Old American Establishment is running things again and that the Old American Establishment is now finally convinced that its financial interests are directly connected with removing blame from the United States for the Zionist-caused suffering of the Palestinians. Obama himself is too much of a dilettante to have the backbone to face the Zionists, but the people behind him are the ultimate SOBs, and will make him get the job done. It is because I believe in conspiracies that I am reasonably optimistic. On the other hand, watch for the Zionists to move heaven and earth in their scheming to stop him (their latest effort in that general direction is to re-start the Cold War so Israel can again be the American representative in the Middle East).

Iraq and China have almost agreed to the terms of a $3 billion oil service contract. "Iraq has toughened the terms, changing the contract to a set-fee service deal from the oil production sharing agreement signed under Saddam."

Except possibly for a few nominal contracts to American companies (just to prove there is no anti-American bias!) watch for all the big oil development and service contracts to go to the national oil companies of countries that didn't participate in the attack on Iraq (e.g., China, Libya, Venezuela, etc). I call this a guarantee rather than a prediction. This War For The Jews wasn't a 'war for oil'.

Wednesday, August 27, 2008

In what is perhaps the most anti-Semitic act ever committed by American law officials (the racist Secret Service conspicuous by its absence), the patsies - rather rough white supremacists, a group including, laying it on a bit thick, a Mr. Adolph (!) with a swastikaring! - were picked up before they could take the blame for the assassination of Obama by an Israeli sniper hired by the Jewish Billionaires (the sniper is still at large, waiting for new patsies). This is being spun as the rantings of meth-heads, but it is still an odd thing for someone picked up on drug and gun charges to up the ante so much by confessing to a conspiracy to assassinate (!). Left out of the nothing-to-see-here-please-move-along stories is the fact that the group appears to be connected to a drug-dealing biker gang called the Sons of Silence (the gang denies it). Drug-dealing biker gangs need drugs, and the main manufacturers/suppliers of many synthetic drugs are Israeli gangsters. Biker gangs can also make credible threats to members of much worse than going to jail for taking the rap for an assassination. If you blew your role as patsy by being picked up too soon, it might be wise to mitigate your grief in prison by following through on the story.

Obama must be removed as he has promised a quick solution to the Palestinian-Jewish conflict (and he'll follow through as the Old American Establishment part of Wall Street has finally come to the realization that it needs to solve this problem so America's 'brand' will no longer be tainted by the accurate world perception of extreme American bias on the Zionist side), and any solution, no matter how unfair to the Palestinians, will require the setting of Israeli borders. The setting of borders will end the dream of inherently expansionist Zionism, and must be prevented at all costs.

Monday, August 25, 2008

McCain was doing so poorly in the polls, and making so many gaffes, that it appeared the Republicans would have to pull the old switcheroo at their convention, and replace him with a plausible candidate like Jeb. Now that McCain is said to have pulled even, that won't happen, and Obama can safely assume he'll be facing the weakest possible opponent in November. Is there a luckier man in the world than Obama?

Friday, August 22, 2008

The Lobby - you know, the one that doesn't exist, or has no power - hasn't changed much over the years. This amazing piece by Alfred M. Lilienthal - from 1953! - describes various Lobby machinations over the years, focusing in particular on the Jewish 'displaced persons' in Europe after the war. Much propaganda value has been obtained by World Jewry at the failure of the West to rescue various groups of Jewish refugees at various times, but heroic efforts by Gentile politicians to rescue the displaced persons by placing them in the U. S., Canada, Britain, etc., or moving fixed numbers of them to Palestine, was resisted by the Lobby, as:

the move to Palestine would require agreement on a bi-national Jewish-Arab state, and not the wholly Jewish state it insisted upon; and

salvation of the displaced persons would deny the Lobby of its chief fund-raising gimmick, the plight of the displaced persons!

The British, who ended up in charge of the mess and just wanted to be fair to both sides, ended up the target of a vicious Jewish terrorist campaign, and much slurring in the American media as 'anti-Semites'. I like the phrase 'Organized American Jewry':

"Organized American Jewry exerted utmost pressures on public opinion and politicians. This, everyone was reminded, was the same kind of war the American Revolutionists had waged against the very same imperialist power. The tactics of the British in Palestine were compared with those used for a long time against Ireland's fighters for freedom. The blowing up of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem and the mob hanging of two British sergeants brought this hussah from Hollywood's Ben Hecht: 'Every time you let go with your guns at the British betrayers of your homeland, the Jews of America make a little holiday in their hearts.'"

Lilienthal's conclusion remains apt, particularly the last line:

"Day in and day out the press carried such headlines as 'The American Jewish Congress demands' — 'Senator Lehman again renews his plea to open up Palestine,' — 'Congressman Javits of Manhattan suggests a Congressional junket to Palestine to foster the establishment of a Jewish commonwealth.' The British Empire building in Radio Center was picketed while William O'Dwyer, not yet a refugee in Mexico, excoriated the British before the National Council of Young Israel. Zionists flooded the capitol with letters trying to link Palestine with aid to Greece and Turkey. 'Tell the British,' some letters said, 'there will be no aid for the British policy in Greece and Turkey unless they follow the United States lead on Palestine.' The State and War Departments, it is true, were constantly cautioning the White House and Congress that an irresponsible vote-chasing policy for Palestine might irreparably damage the American position in one of the world's most strategic areas. But politicians, when following the scent of 'blocs,' seem to be beyond the reach of reason. At the climax of the Palestine crisis, at any rate, elections were just around the corner (they always seem to be in this blessed country of ours), and both parties were convinced that their eloquent support of statehood for Israel was a prerequisite for their conquest of pivotal states. There was, in fact, no need for the Zionists to refute the solemn warnings that were coming from the War and State Departments. All the Zionists had to do was to make sure that the politicians remained hypnotized by 'the Jewish vote.' Perhaps for the first time in history, a decisive battle could indeed be won with the tools of propaganda. It is to the credit of the Zionists' acumen that they grasped their chance. But it is perhaps less to the credit of America's non-Zionist Jewry that it permitted its self-appointed Zionist leaders to bet the future of American Judaism on the roulette of power politics."

Organized American Jewry continues to analyze every situation with the question 'What's good for the Jews?', but the question doesn't mean what it seems to mean. The average Jewish (or Arab) Israeli is much less secure as a result of the efforts of the neocons, just as the displaced persons were sold out by Jewish leadership for political reasons. 'What's good for the Jews?' means, as it always has, 'what will get us closer to a Zionist Empire across the Middle East?'. Individual real Jews, or groups of Jews, are just cannon fodder to be used and abused towards the real long-term goal. The Zionists will be happy if they are left with one Jew in the world, as long as he is Emperor of the Zionist Empire.

In case you haven't had your fill of this stuff, you might want to read the important article by Grant F. Smith on the political elbows thrown to keep the Lobby from having to register as a foreign lobby, an article based on new information obtained in June from freedom of information requests. Smith also considers how the history of AIPAC connects directly to the lobbying effort to keep the Lobby from being treated like a lobby.

Wednesday, August 20, 2008

One of the facts hurled your way if you attempt to assert that the attack on Iraq was one of the Wars For The Jews is that Dick Cheney isn't Jewish. No, he was a Shabbat goy,a gentile enlisted to do what the Jewish Billionaires couldn't do, not for religious reasons, but for the practical reason that they needed a non-Jew to do the dirty work or else the Zionist nature of the attack on Iraq would have been too obvious. Dick Cheney had to be bought in order to betray the Old American Establishment he had so faithfully served for decades (one of the main reasons the Old American Establishment was so blindsided by the Zionist neocons is that the Old Boys trusted Cheney to look after their interests, not realizing he had been bought and paid for). Once the Jewish Billionaires had bribed the Republicans to put the Clean Breakers in charge of American military policy, they had the same group pay off Dick (my emphasis in red):

"A March 6, 2003 internal Pentagon e-mail sent by an Army Corps of Engineers official says 'action' on a multibillion-dollar Halliburton contract was 'coordinated' within Cheney's office.

The e-mail says Douglas Feith, the former Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, received authorization from then Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz to 'execute' the Restore Iraqi Oil contract to Halliburton in 2002.

Feith was one of the architects of the Iraq war who operated the Pentagon’s Office of Special Plans that exaggerated the Iraqi threat and provided the White House with bogus information about links between Iraq and al Qaeda.

The email said Feith approved elements in the contract 'contingent on informing WH [White House] tomorrow. We anticipate no issues since action has been coordinated w VP's [Vice President's] office.'

Cheney, who claims he has severed all ties with Halliburton, receives deferred compensation from the company annually.

Two days after the email was sent, the Army Corps of Engineers formally awarded Halliburton the contract, without reviewing bids from other companies."

Of courrse, Halliburton's contract was with the Pentagon, and not with the Iraqi government. As soon as Halliburton lands a major contract with the current Iraqi government - and I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it! - you can say the attack on Iraq was a 'war for oil'.

Tuesday, August 19, 2008

Remember how those inconsequential technical services agreements for some oil companies to assist the Iraq government in oil development were supposed to 'prove' that the attack on Iraq really, really was a 'war for oil', and not, as some anti-Semites would have it, a War For The Jews? Well . . . (my emphasis in red):

"Six short-term deals between the Iraqi government and international oil companies are likely to be abandoned after the US embassy said talks had broken down yesterday.

Short-term technical support contracts between the Iraqi government and the multinational companies, each worth around $500m (£268), were due to have been signed earlier this year but stalled due to disagreements over terms, a senior diplomat said.

Charles Ries, co-ordinator for Iraq's economic transition at the US embassy in Baghdad, admitted that talks between the Iraqi government and a consortium led by US-based Anadarko had already fallen through.

Others with Royal Dutch Shell, a joint venture between Shell and BHP Billiton, BP, Exxon Mobil and a venture between Chevron and Total now seem unlikely to go ahead.

'It appears that on present form (the Iraqi government) probably won't proceed with most of these or all of them,' Mr Ries said. 'But I think some of the companies are open to continued discussions even on relationship grounds, and some of the companies don't think it's worth their time.'

He added that the short-term contracts had limited appeal for the oil companies but some had hoped to go on to win longer-term development contracts, which would be far more lucrative.

The deals would have given global oil companies their first major involvement in Iraq's oil sector in nearly 40 years."

Americans should try to imagine how they would feel if Iraq had conducted an completely unprovoked and illegal invasion of the United States based on a series of lies from Israeli operatives, slaughtered fifteen to twenty million Americans, and displaced fifty to a hundred million Americans (these are approximate American equivalents of what the Zionists have done to Iraq). How quickly would Americans be ready to grant lucrative contracts to Iraqi companies? Not too quickly. That's why the oil companies were against the attack, and why it is ludicrous to describe it as a war for oil. It was a War For The Jews, and no amount of spinning will ever change that.

Monday, August 18, 2008

Michael Ledeen appears to have left the American Enterprise Institute, and it doesn't look like a voluntary departure. You might think that this represents an attempt by the AEI to crawl back to some semblance of intellectual respectability, but the continued presence of such idiots as Perle, Kagan, Pletka and John 'Iranian nuclear steamboats up the Potamac' Bolton leaves it the same laughing-stock as it has been since it was taken over as one of the propaganda arms of the Israeli settler movement. Two other possibilities come to mind:

The AEI may be worried about the forgery scandals coming to light. Both the Niger yellowcake forgeries and the more recently discussed forgery that attempted to connect Saddam to the anthrax attacks remain officially unsolved mysteries, although I very much doubt that American authorities don't have more of a clue than they are letting on. Part of the neocon lying factory that led to the disastrous attack on Iraq involved a rather extensive forgery operation, one which Ledeen says he had nothing to do with. Be that as it may, it would permanently wreck the ability of the AEI to continue to lie to Americans - on both the settler-movement nonsense and the usual right-wing nonsense - should one of its fellows turn out to be connected with the forgeries.

Something I've already noted is that the only country that actually benefited from the attack on Iraq is Iran, and Ledeen appears to have been fooled by Iranian intelligence agents who reeled him in like a giant gifilte fish, all the while that Ledeen basked in the glow that it was he who is the master deceiver. World Jewry may very well be furious with Ledeen for having inadvertently (?) assisted the Iranian hard-liners to exactly the Iraq they had been looking for, but had no practical way of achieving without the help of some very stupid and deceived Americans (it reminds me of how Netanyahu rejected the 'Clean Break' document as he had no way of implementing it, at least not until the Jewish Billionaires bribed the Republicans into installing the Clean Breakers into the American government, where they proceeded to implement the plan on behalf of the Israeli settler movement). The new success of Iran in finding anti-Israeli allies is based entirely on the effects of the American attack on Iraq, and the attack on Iraq, while correctly blamed entirely on the deceits and machinations of World Jewry, now looks like a successful Iranian intelligence operation whose main dupe was one Michael Ledeen.

Saturday, August 16, 2008

Confirmation of the wild Georgian conspiracy theory, from none less that the Georgian reintegration minister, Temur Yakobashvili, a "former Zionist leader who speaks fluent Hebrew" (my emphasis in red):

"Yakobashvili blasted Israel's decision to suspend defense aid to Georgia: 'Israel did it at the Russians' behest. It aided the terrorists, the Russians. It's a disgrace. I don't know what it received in return, I only see that Hezbollah continues to get Russian arms, and plenty of it.'"

Friday, August 15, 2008

Commentators are pointing out that my Georgian conspiracy theory is the exact opposite of established wisdom, but I'm not backing off. If you assume, as you must, that the traitorous 'American' neocons work in lock-step with their Israeli bosses, and that the 'Americans' knew that the U. S. really had no interest in backing up Georgia with World War III (part of the new order, with the Old American Establishment putting the adults back in charge of American military and diplomatic planning), there is no way to explain the Americans hanging the Georgians out to dry other than the fact it was a set up for the benefit of Putin. There is no obvious American motive for this. There is also no obvious Israeli motive, unless you consider that the Israelis would rather curry favor with the Russians than keep a tiny Georgian ally. It appears that the Israelis have already picked sides, cutting off their weapons supply attachments to the Georgians. Now it remains to be seen if the Russians repay their new pals by cutting back on the defensive weapons supplies to the Middle East, supplies that are deeply anti-Semitic as they might prevent the G-d-given right of the Jews to kill other peoples in the area.

Note this article, which takes the mainstream view while proving the opposite:

"Even though weapons transfers were modest in scope, Russian diplomats began increasingly relaying to Israel their annoyance over its military aid to Georgia, including the special forces training provided by security experts. Israel decided about a year ago to limit military exports to defensive equipment and training.

There were reports in Israel that the sale of the tanks didn't go through because of a disagreement over the commission that was to be paid as part of the deal. But Amos Yaron, the former director general of the Defense Ministry, insisted it had to do with 'security-diplomatic considerations' - a clear reference to the sensitivity of the arms sales to Georgia. Israel, Yaron added, didn't want 'to harm Russian interests too much'.

Asked about the motivation to initially engage in the sale of weaponry to Georgia despite concerns it might anger Russia, Yaron replied: 'We did see that there was potential for a conflagration in the region but Georgia is a friendly state, it's supported by the US, and so it was difficult to refuse.'"

In other words, the Israelis had already been playing a high-level diplomaitc game with the Russians (you might want to consider that the alleged 'special relationship' with the Georgians was part of a long-term scheme to apply leverage to the Russians). I think the mainstream commentators are guilty, as usual, of failing to be cynical enough. Israel has no real friends (e. g., USS Liberty), just a series of relationships involving mutual exploitation. Faced with a choice of gaining big leverage with the Russians or keeping a tiny ally, Israel did what was 'good for the Jews'. All the talk about the special relationship between Georgia and Israel due to Jewish connections was just poppycock.

Thursday, August 14, 2008

Israel had a lot to do with the stupid actions of the government in Georgia (and is boasting about it!). The other big player in convincing the Georgians to walk into a door were the American 'dual-loyalist' Israeli-controlled neocons (it reminds me of George Bush - the father - telling the Kurds that if they rebelled against Saddam after the first Gulf War he would protect them, with the bonus that the subsequent massacre of the Kurds by Saddam, the one which the Americans let happen without doing anything to help the Kurds, was one of the reasons given by the son for his attack on Iraq!). What was the point of handing the Russians a perfect excuse to do what they have wanted to do for years?

I'm in a Pollard frame of mind. Remember Pollard stole American spy secrets to give to Israel so Israel could barter the lives of American spies for Jews released from the Soviet Union (the Soviets kept the decent Jews and sent all the gangsters to Israel, which explains a lot). Israel doesn't want Russia to sell defensive military equipment to countries in the Middle East. Could the Israelis and their treasonous agents in the United States have done a deal with the Russians to set Georgia up to give the Russians a perfect excuse to attack Georgia in return for Russia cutting back on its sales of defensive arms to the Middle East?

Tuesday, August 12, 2008

Everybody knew that the FBI could easily determine the source of the anthrax used in the attack, but the FBI was always coy about the results of its investigations. In order to create a 'lone nut' hypothesis, the FBI needed to put raw anthrax spores in the possession of the nut, and the patsy had these spores as a result of his employment at Fort Detrick. With the collapse of the ridiculous FBI theory that he weaponized the spores by himself in his spare time, we have, for the first time, official U. S. government admission that the anthrax came from Fort Detrick. The necessity of finding a nut with plausible access to anthrax finally required the FBI to end the government-protecting ambiguity with respect to the source. Whether Fort Detrick could weaponize the spores or not, we can be certain that they were weaponized at some U. S. government lab, in an operation requiring considerable expense and a considerable number of man-hours. This was no rogue operation.

The conspirators were very sophisticated, but did a lousy job at pretending to be Islamist terrorists. In fact, that angle was played up by the disgusting American media simply to create the predictable immediate panic (and play into the Islamophobic meme required by Bibi Netanyahu's 'war on terror', which is itself just an advertising campaign for the Wars For The Jews). Of course, the main point of the exercise was to scare Democratic senators into supporting the Patriot Act (itself not just a law, but an expression of the same Islamophobia). An attack by Islamist terrorists would have little effect in convincing these senators to support the Patriot Act. On the other hand, an attack by weaponized anthrax which could only have come from a U. S. government lab and was directed at specific senators at a time when they were bering sceptical about the Patriot Act carries an unambiguous warning, a warning which was heeded. The lousy job at pretending to be Islamist terrorists was intentional. Americans were supposed to believe it was an Islamist attack; the specific senators were supposed to read the signs and see it as a specific attack from the Bush Administration with a warning of what might happen to them should the Patriot Act not be passed. The kind of people who would mount a lethal biowarfare attack agianst American civilians just to make a political point are not the kind of people you want to cross.

Friday, August 08, 2008

I'm sorry, but I can't help mulling over the preposterousness of the FBI's case against Bruce Ivins. The anthrax attack was made with state-of-the-art - let me correct myself, beyond-state-of-the-art - weaponized anthrax. The Russians couldn't have made it, the Chinese couldn't have made it, hell, even the Iraqis (ha!) couldn't have made it. Only one tiny group of people in the world could have made it, a handful of scientists at . . . Fort Detrick. I hate to even bring it up, but developing this expertise is completely illegal under treaties signed and ratified by the American government. The main point is that the manufacturing process needed to make this stuff was beyond the ability of anyone other than a tiny number of American scientists, and Bruce Ivins wasn't one of them.

The case against Ivins is based entirely on (questionable) DNA analysis which is said to prove that he had custody of a flask of the base anthrax material from which the weaponized powder was made. How do we get from anthrax spores to weaponized powder? According to the FBI, Ivins made it all by himself in his spare time at night.

Ivins was an immunologist. He worked on vaccines. He had neither the expertise - remember, it is beyond-state-of-the-art - nor the equipment to turn the spores into weaponized anthrax. It is as if he was trained as an accountant and the FBI told us his night-time hobby was brain surgery. Or better, manufacturing gasoline out of crude oil in the oil refinery he built in his lab, without anybody noticing. Or better, manufacturing gasoline out of crude oil in the oil refinery he built in his lab, using beyond-state-of-the-art refining techniques developed over years of experimentation, without anybody noticing.

And yet, we're told he must have done it, as he had custody of the flask. Others, some of whom were part of a team that actually had made beyond-state-of-the-art weaponized anthrax based on years of (illegal) experiments using the most sophisticated equipment and techniques, also had access to the contents of the flask, but they have been 'ruled out'. Somehow Ivins, without training in the right field, the proper equipment, years of (illegal) experiments, and a team of scientists, turned the contents of his flask into beyond-state-of-the-art weaponized anthrax in his spare time at night without anybody noticing. On top of this, he did it without getting any of the notoriously hard-to-contain spores on himself or his car or his home. If you believe this, is there anything you wouldn't believe? I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.

The Globe & Mailreports that the serial-killer look in male models - the Beardo - is finally fashionable. I thought that Charlie Manson has always been fashionable.

The dual-loyalty problem. Luckily, the culprits can be identified without having them wear Stars of David on their lapels.

The FBI remains obsessed with questionable DNA 'science'. Once you scrap all the other evidence against Ivins - which essentially consists in the fact that he was a weirdo - the FBI has only managed to prove that the anthrax attacks were an operation conducted out of Fort Detrick (good and completely unanswered questions raised here). The 'lone nut' hypothesis thus comes down to an explanation which attempts to make the attacks other than an official U. S. government operation against American citizens. I note that a lot of the analysis of the problem from conspiracists tries to tie the attack to the Mossad without any shred of evidence whatsoever, traditional anti-Semitism which has the effect of protecting the U. S. government (btw, have you noticed that the new hotbed of traditional anti-Semitism is the 9/11 'truth' movement?) . What is most unfortunate about this case - and provides further proof that the United States is fucked - is that even left-wing analysts accept the FBI's threadbare case as definitive. American deference to authority, even when the authority is obviously lying, is appalling.

Thursday, August 07, 2008

The police seem to investigate with blinders on. We often see cases where an innocent man is finally released for a crime he didn't commit, with an obvious suspect living down the street who the police didn't even look at. Part of the problem is psychological: police become invested in 'their perp', and are unable to see anyone else as even a possibility.

There is also a serious tactical reason for police blinders. Paying too much attention to too many possible suspects raises the distinct possibility that a defense lawyer will raise the issue. After all, if the police themselves weren't convinced that the defendant committed the crime, a fact finder should be able to draw reasonable doubt as to the defendant's guilt. While quiet sub rosa investigations are possible, any obvious investigation of an alternative suspect is discouraged.

Of course, the FBI had its perp in Hatfill. The parallel investigation of Ivins was not only no secret, it appears to have been known by almost everybody who knew Ivins. In fact, the publicity of the investigation was part of the harassment of Ivins. Each of Hatfill and Ivins could have used the investigation of the other as part of a very good defense. This makes no sense from the point of view of obtaining a conviction, if that was in fact the FBI's intent.

Of course, the FBI wasn't trying to obtain a conviction. The released evidence against Ivins, advertised as conclusive, would never have resulted in a conviction (lots of problems listed here; e.g., why would an expert on anthrax strains not notice that the strain he used might be traced back to him?; see the whole site), and the evidence against Hatfill was so weak it was a joke. The entire point of the investigation, including the parallel public investigations of Hatfill and Ivins which looked more like persecutions than prosecutions, was to so muddy the waters that any investigation would prove to be impossible. The FBI wasn't trying to investigate the anthrax attacks, it was trying to cover them up.

Why? As posted here before, the attacks were directed at Democrats who were having doubts about the Patriot Act, just when the Patriot Act was being debated (it worked so well they tried it again). Immediately after the attacks, the rare spine of the Democrats disappeared, and the Act passed, thus formalizing Bibi Netanyahu's Islamophobic 'war on terror' into the American legal system. It has also been noted that other subjects of the attacks may well have been those media people who particularly angered Bush/Cheney at the time (with the broadening of the attack intended to make the directed attack on Democratic legislators less obvious). Of course, as part of the same neocon package, the attacks were later used as part of the lie campaign to convince Americans it was necessary for the United States to make its disastrous attack on Iraq.

Employees of an American government agency, under orders from on high, waged a lethal terrorist bio-warfare attack on American citizens with the intent of scaring law-makers into passing a fascistic anti-Constitutional series of laws against the liberty of the American people, eventually lied about their own attack to trick Americans into a multi-trillion dollar debacle of a war, and the whole thing is covered up by the main American federal police unit. It is not a pretty picture.

It gets worse (and perhaps a bit better). After harassing Ivins almost to the point of insanity, they force him into a mental institution, manipulate someone they have a hold on into branding him as a psychopathic killer (and spread even more bizarre stories), and then, either 'suicide' him or harass him to the point where suicide was his only option. One psycho perp, conveniently dead, case closed. Americans who went along with the Patriot Act as it would only cover the swarthy should reflect on what has been done to a white, middle-class American, a loyal government employee for decades, decorated for his exceptional service to the safety of the American people, whose only crime was to be in a position to be used as a patsy to protect the guilty.

The only good in this comes out of the internet. For years, Americans have been fed Official Stories by the disgusting American media. The Stories are always presented as facts, with no possible alternative. You might feel uneasy about these Stories, but you were always alone. The only chance you had to complain was in letters to the editor, which of course would never be published unless they reflected the Official Story. The internet allowed a community of individuals to immediately call shenanigans on the FBI's increasingly addled lies. While the FBI has achieved its desired cover-up, its reputation has been irrevocably damaged, as has the ability of the disgusting American media to peddle obvious crock-of-shit Official Stories as news.

False-flag self-hating? There is a rather obvious attempt at damage control orchestrated by World Jewry and fronted by Zionist - not to mention, huge Iraq attack cheerleader - Joe Klein. The fear is that the Iraq/Iran war debacle, which is now directly impinging on the privileged lifestyle of the average American, will end up being blamed on the two-faced American Jewish community, and in particular on its Jewish Billionaire 'leaders'. It is thus time to throw Doug Feith and his fellow war criminal co-conspirators under the bus (". . . a small group of Jewish neoconservatives"), and save the larger group so it may continue to scheme for future war crimes. The idea is to put all the blame on a handful of neocons, making sure to emphasize that the real blame still lies with Gentiles Bush and Cheney, increase the credibility of the charge by having the usual suspects like Foxman throw the slur around, and thus limit the damage to a tiny group of 'dual loyalists'. This campaign is being led by lite Zionists with the help of the Israeli Zionist establishment, but is receiving support from the usual 'anti-war' crowd as well. Note the spin from Levy:

"Were the Jewish neocons in control and did they make the fatal decisions? No. Are all Jews neoconservatives or are all neoconservatives Jews? Please! Are the Jews or Israel to blame for the Bush Middle East debacle? Get outta here.

Something did happen though - there was a failure within the mainstream, Jewish and non-Jewish, to identify the existence of a particular Jewish neoconservative narrative and then to challenge that narrative as being fundamentally flawed in its reading of both American and Israeli interests."

The JStreet survey proves that Americans who self-identify as Jewish - and I note that decent Jewish Americans are tending to assimilate partly to avoid being associated with the deep two-faced immorality of the American Jewish community - are clearly against sharing Jerusalem, which is code for support of all the settler movement eliminationist positions, including, however they may deceive themselves, the Zionist attacks on Iraq and Iran.